Henry Kissinger, Iceland's Promoter, Khadafy's Apologists, and the Rise of the Academic Mercenary

In which we discuss how medical academic mercenaries (like the key opinion leaders paid to promote drugs and devices cloaked in their academic and professional credentials) now appear to be just part of a larger problem.
Henry Kissinger

Almost 17 years ago, an article by David Halberstam in Vanity Fair(1) should have warned us of the rise of the academic and intellectual mercenary.  However, back in those go-go years of the new gilded age, most of us were not listening. 

Halberstam focused on Henry Kissinger, once a protege of New York Governor and then US Vice President Nelson Rockefeller, who became the infamous President Nixon's National Security Advisor, then Secretary of State:

Kissinger’s capacity to be all things to all campaigns—an overt Rockefeller man, a semi-overt Humphrey man, and a covert Nixon man—reflects the emergence of the rootless operator in the modern superstate. Kissinger was the first—though there were others to follow—of the wildly ambitious agents of opportunity set loose in the wilds of Washington and other capitals. They are interchangeable men, singular in their ambitions, unhampered by traditional loyalties or affiliations. They are men so cool and detached in their geopolitical views that they sometimes seem to be part of a new international elite, readily transferable to the governments of allies and adversaries alike.

Two recent dramatic stories show how prevalent academic mercenaries, another breed of "rootless operators," or "wildly ambitious agents of opportunity," have become.

Promoting Iceland: Columbia Professors' "Inside Job"

The Academy Award winning documentary film, "Inside Job," suggested that one cause of the Great Recession was the wrong-headed deregulation of the financial industry deceptively promoted by academics who failed to disclose they were being paid by those who stood to benefit from deregulation.  (See our post here.)

Reconsideration of the roles of two of the academics cited in the film who are faculty at Columbia University shed more light on how public policy was influenced by academics hired to do public relations. The Columbia Spectator just published a three- part series on the local controversy with global implications.

At least a few Columbia faculty realized that it did not look good for their colleagues to do public relations while pretending they were delivering disinterested academic opinions:

[Columbia Economics Department Chair Michael] Riordan added that it is important that Columbia protect its reputation and the public’s trust in its professors’ expert opinions.

'What does the university stand for but if not for the quality of the ideas that come out of that university?' he asked. (2)

Also,

Teachers College professor Kathleen O’Connell ... called the film 'appalling' and said that 'the Columbia professors were even more appalling.' She said she was especially surprised considering Hubbard and Mishkin have both had high-ranking government jobs—Hubbard was at one time a top economic adviser to former President George W. Bush, and Mishkin was a governor of the Federal Reserve.

'I was shocked at the lack of ethics that they displayed. They are in really powerful positions—they have been in powerful positions in the Federal Reserve and the President’s economic advisors,' O’Connell said.(3)

However, there was much resistance to change. Just as we have seen in arguments about conflicts of interest affecting medical faculty, there were those who denied that being paid to consult could affect any faculty member's thinking about the source of the payment:

But some, including Business School professor and University Senator Frank Lichtenberg, oppose the disclosure of consulting to the University. Lichtenberg said that many factors besides money can influence professors’ academic opinions.

'There are lots of other sources of bias and non-neutrality in academia anyway,' Lichtenberg said. 'People often have predispositions for or against different hypotheses, and unfortunately, those sometimes prevail.'

Some professors question whether paid consulting positions influence researchers at all. Business School professor Bruce Greenwald said that the economists featured in 'Inside Job' have 'long espoused and long promoted' pro-market ideas and would have made the same arguments regardless of financial ties.(4)

So we have economists denying the effect of economic incentives?

Beyond that, there were arguments that public disclosure of conflicts of interest would violate faculty members' privacy.

But full public disclosure is not likely to gain much traction in the debate over a University-wide policy. Steele said that it is not necessary to publicly release disclosures made privately to University officials.

'I don’t think that the public needs to have access to forms that people fill out and all the materials that go into that,' [Provost Paul] Steele said. 'That would be onerous at least, and there might be other objections … that you are invading people’s sense of privacy and freedom.'(2)

I suppose that would have made some sense if the faculty member had not made any public pronouncements that could have been influenced by the undisclosed conflicts. However, the contention in "Inside Job" was that conflicted academic economists publicly advocated on behalf of their undisclosed clients. For example,

In 2006, the Iceland Chamber of Commerce paid Columbia Business School professor Frederic Mishkin $134,858 to co-author a report on Iceland’s economy and banking systems. In the report, titled 'Financial Stability in Iceland,' Mishkin painted a bright picture of the country’s economic future, but he did not disclose who was paying him to write it.

'Although Iceland’s economy does have imbalances that will eventually be reversed, financial fragility is not high and the likelihood of a financial meltdown is very low,' Mishkin wrote.

Two years later, Iceland’s economy collapsed. Its major banks failed, its currency lost much of its value, and thousands of its citizens lost their jobs. The New York Times wrote at the time that, to Icelanders, 'the collapse came so fast it seemed unreal, impossible.'(2)

Harvard Professors' Paid Apologia for Moammar Khadafy

Praising Iceland's economy was one thing. Praising brutal Libyan leader Moammar Khadafy as democratic was another.

In March, 2011, Mother Jones disclosed(5) how a consulting group run by Harvard professors was hired in part to burnish the image of Moammar Khadafy, who since has ordered brutal attacks on protesters within his country.

In February 2007 Harvard professor Joseph Nye Jr., who developed the concept of "soft power,' visited Libya and sipped tea for three hours with Muammar Qad'afi. Months later, he penned an elegant description of the chat for The New Republic, reporting that Qaddafi had been interested in discussing 'direct democracy.' Nye noted that 'there is no doubt that' the Libyan autocrat 'acts differently on the world stage today than he did in decades past. And the fact that he took so much time to discuss ideas—including soft power—with a visiting professor suggests that he is actively seeking a new strategy.' The article struck a hopeful tone: that there was a new Qaddafi. It also noted that Nye had gone to Libya 'at the invitation of the Monitor Group, a consulting company that is helping Libya open itself to the global economy.'

Nye did not disclose all. He had actually traveled to Tripoli as a paid consultant of the Monitor Group (a relationship he disclosed in an email to Mother Jones), and the firm was working under a $3 million-per-year contract with Libya. Monitor, a Boston-based consulting firm with ties to the Harvard Business School, had been retained, according to internal documents obtained by a Libyan dissident group, not to promote economic development, but 'to enhance the profile of Libya and Muammar Qadhafi.' So The New Republic published an article sympathetic to Qaddafi that had been written by a prominent American intellectual paid by a firm that was being compensated by Libya to burnish the dictator's image.

Monitor also sponsored trips to Libya for scholars from other universities who also later wrote positively about Khadafy's and his reign over Libya, presumably after they had received their large consulting fees.

The Boston Globe reported(6) in more detail about a proposal by Monitor to write a laudatory book about Khadafy:

It reads like Libyan government propaganda, extolling the importance of Moammar Khadafy, his theories on democracy, and his 'core ideas on individual freedom.'


But the 22-page proposal for a book on Khadafy was written by Monitor Group, a Cambridge-based consultant firm founded by Harvard professors. The management consulting firm received $250,000 a month from the Libyan government from 2006 to 2008 for a wide range of services, including writing the book proposal, bringing prominent academics to Libya to meet Khadafy 'to enhance international appreciation of Libya' and trying to generate positive news coverage of the country.

As further documented in the Globe article, it was very clear that Monitor was paid not just to provide consultation, but to do public relations work on behalf of the Khadafy regime.

Yet an article in the Nation(7) made it clear that the prominent academics it hired did not disclose who paid them, or the purposes of those payments:

Joseph Nye of Harvard’s Kennedy School wrote in The New Republic in 2007 that Muammar Qaddafi was interested in discussing 'direct democracy.'

Anthony Giddens of the London School of Economics wrote in the Guardian the same year that Libya under Qaddafi could become 'the Norway of North Africa.'

Benjamin Barber of Rutgers University wrote in the Washington Post, also in 2007, that Libya under Qaddafi could become 'the first Arab state to transition peacefully and without overt Western intervention to a stable, non-autocratic government.

Great minds think alike? Actually, no: all were being paid by Libyan money, under a $3 million per year contract with a consulting group which promised to 'enhance the profile of Libya and Muammar Quadhafi' in Britain and the US.

One more thing: none of them said in The New Republic, the Guardian, or the Washington Post that they were being paid by Libyan money.

So here again we have the elements of what Wendell Potter (see this post) called the "third party strategy." A public relations company hires outside "experts" with veneers of academic or professional credibility to promote the interests of its clients, without disclosing that the "experts" have become paid flacks. Again, this is bad enough when it is done on behalf of health policies favorable to commercial insurance companies. It is worse when it is done on behalf of brutal dictators.

More recently, the Globe discovered(8) that the Monitor Group negotiated with the head of the Libyan intelligence service who had been implicated in various violent acts,

He is Moammar Khadafy’s brother-in-law and his most trusted aide, convicted in absentia for the 1989 bombing of a French airliner and implicated in the 1996 massacre of 1,200 Libyan political prisoners.

But in 2006, Abdullah Al Sanusi was also the man who arranged the services of a noted Cambridge consulting firm in a very different project: revamping Libya’s reputation on the world stage.

Sanusi, a longtime head of Libya’s intelligence services, oversaw initial negotiations with the Monitor Group, which was vying for a contract with Libya to bring prominent Americans to speak to Khadafy as part of an effort to improve ties and nudge the pariah country toward reforms.

'We believe that your commitment to creating a program of mutual education and relationship building with the Unit ed States remains of critical importance at this turning point in Libyan history. We remain privileged to be trusted with this work,' Monitor’s chief executive, Mark Fuller, and project director, Rajeev Singh-Molares, wrote to Sanusi in 2006.

However, so far, Harvard leadership has if anything been more defensive about its faculty members' stealth public relations work for a brutal dictator than was Columbia's leadership about its faculty member's stealth public relations work for Iceland. As reported(9) again by the Boston Globe,

A prominent Harvard professor and former university administrator urged Harvard President Drew Faust during a faculty meeting yesterday to express 'shame'’ on behalf of the university at the disclosure of financial ties between a senior academic and Libyan dictator Moammar Khadafy.

Saying nothing would send the wrong message to students, giving them the impression that personal financial gain could come at the expense of ethical conduct, said Harry Lewis, a computer science professor who formerly served as undergraduate dean.

'Shouldn’t Harvard acknowledge its embarrassment, and might you remind us that when we parlay our status as Harvard professors for personal profit, we can hurt both the university and all of its members?' Lewis asked Faust at the monthly gathering of the arts and sciences faculty.

Faculty meetings are closed to outside media, but Lewis provided the Globe a written transcript of his statement, which he sent to Faust several days ago.

Faust — who, according to Lewis, told him she did not want to be 'scold in chief' — said she supports the wide discretion of faculty members to pursue the directions of academic inquiry and outside engagements they choose.

How low once proud institutions have fallen was demonstrated by a Harvard President who could not bring herself to "scold" faculty who were paid to provide public relations for a brutal dictator while hiding behind their Harvard titles.  Her action was not just "a weak standard for an institution of global leadership,"(10) but failed to erase "a distinctive odor, one that emanates from the corruption of academic reputation."(11)

Summary

Since before we first started this blog, we wondered somewhat despairingly how medicine, and particularly academic medicine, had become so badly lead.  Since the global economic collapse/ Great Recession it belatedly became clear that health care has just been swept along by the waves that drove larger social, economic and political institutions.  In particular, when we wondered how conflicts of interest had become so pervasive in medicine, we did not realize how pervasive conflicts of interest and corruption had become throughout the world.  The fact that leaders of previously revered educational institutions like Columbia and Harvard still cannot bring themselves even to admit the need to disclose conflicts, much less "scold" people for selling out to brutal tyrants indicates how deep the rot has gone.

Fixing the great problems of health care will require fixing the greater problems of society at large.  We must learn to discredit, not honor the "wildly ambitious agents of opportunity" that have been sent out to dominate the new gilded age.   


References


1.  Halberstam D. The new establishment: the decline and fall of the Eastern Empire. Vanity Fair, October, 1994. Link here.
2. Poliak S. 'Inside Job' prompts new look at conflict of interest policy. Columbia Spectator, April 13, 2011. Link here.
3. Poliak S. After documentary, B-school rethinking ethics. Columbia Spectator, April 15, 2011. Link here.
4. Poliak S, Roth S. 'Inside Job' sparks three separate reviews of disclosure policy. Columbia Spectator, April 14, 2011. Link here.
5. Corn D, Mahanta S. From Libya with love. Mother Jones, March 3, 2011. Link here.
6. Stockman F. Local consultants aided Khadafy. Boston Globe, March 4, 2011. Link here.
7. Wiener J. Professors paid by Qaddafi: providing 'positive public relations.' The Nation, March 5, 2011. Link here.
8. Stockman F. Top Khadafy aide helped craft deal with local firm. Boston Globe, March 30, 2011. Link here.
9. Jan T. Harvard leader confronted on professor's ties to Libya. Boston Globe, April 6, 2011. Link here.
10. Anonymous. Yes, Harvard chief should scold profs who worked for Khadafys.  Boston Globe, April 11, 2011.  Link here.
11.  Barrett PM. The professors and Qaddafi's extreme makeover.  Bloomberg BusinessWeek, April 6, 2011.  Link here.

Post Title → Henry Kissinger, Iceland's Promoter, Khadafy's Apologists, and the Rise of the Academic Mercenary

"The 'Third Rail' that No One Wishes to Analyze" - Conflicts of Interest Affecting Health Care Foundations

On Health Care Renewal we discuss what we think are important issues affecting health care that seem to be rarely mentioned in the medical and health care literature and the "main-stream media."  In particular, we focus on problems in health care leadership and governance, how they threatened the core values of health care professionals, and how these threats contribute to rising costs, and declining access and quality. 

One of our preoccupations has been why these problems remain so anechoic.  A new article in PLoS Medicine [Stuckler D, Basu S, McKee M. Global health philanthropy and institutional relationships: how should conflicts of interest be addressed? PLoS Med 8(4): e1001020. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001020.  Link here. ] seems to have uncovered another missing link to the anechoic effect. 

Private Foundations and Their Influence on Global Health

The article noted the importance of the influence of private foundations on global health:

While corporate involvement in and government aid for health has been extensively analyzed and critiqued in the public health literature, less attention has been paid to the impact of private donors on public health. Over the past decade, the bulk of new health aid designed to reach the Millennium Development Goals has come from individuals and corporations. The influence of this private philanthropy on global health is profound and transformative.

So,

Private foundations operate outside the typical boundaries of democracy; unlike government ministries, private foundations cannot be influenced in the same way by the communities affected by the foundations' actions. In the interests of public health, and particularly because poor communities affected by foundations do not automatically have a feedback mechanism to influence the decisions of private funders, we argue that it is appropriate to subject private foundations to the same scrutiny received by public institutions.

In this paper, we examine the scope of potential conflicts of interests that exist among the private foundations that are major funders of global health.

I would add that private foundations may have an outsize influence not only on global public health policy, but also on health care policy within particular countries, including the US.   This may arise because of the perception that they are more independent and nearer the cutting edge than are government and industry sources of funding. For example, here in the US, the Kellogg and Robert Wood Johnson Foundations have been widely perceived by health care, services and policy researchers as especially influential and respectable sources of funding, possibly partially because of the perception that they have less self-serving agendas than do government agencies and for-profit health care corporations.

The Possibility of Conflicts of Interest

The authors noted increasing concern about conflicts of interest affecting the activities of for-profit corporations involved in public health and health care:

because tensions can arise between the profit motives of corporations and the promotion of public health. Whereas corporations make products that can improve health (such as pharmaceuticals and vaccines) and relationships between public health institutions and for-profit corporations can be seen as positive opportunities for corporations to improve public health, corporations also make products that damage health (such as tobacco or unhealthy foods). And because some corporations have a vested interest in the activities of public health bodies, there have been documented attempts to influence the public health agenda by establishing associations with health care institutions

Thus the authors thought it also made sense to address conflicts of interest affecting private foundations operating in the global health space. They performed a case-study of the largest global health foundation, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, while also briefly discussing four other large global health foundations, the Ford Foundation, W. K. Kellogg Foundation, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and Rockefeller Foundation.

Stock Holdings

The article noted that the Gates Foundation had substantial investments in food and pharmaceutical companies:

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation's corporate stock endowment is heavily invested in food and pharmaceutical companies, directly and indirectly .... The Foundation holds significant shares in McDonald's (9.4 million shares representing about 5% of the Gates' portfolio), and Coca-Cola (>15 million shares, over 7% of the Foundation's portfolio, not counting Berkshire Hathaway holdings). In 2009 the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation sold extensive pharmaceutical holdings in Johnson & Johnson (2.5 million shares), Schering-Plough Corporation (14.9 million shares), Eli Lilly and Company (about 1 million shares), Merck & Co. (8.1 million shares), and Wyeth (3.7 million shares).

Also, the Foundation indirectly invests in food and pharmaceutical companies through its holdings of Berkshire Hathaway:

Berkshire Hathaway's largest investment is in Coca-Cola. It owns an additional 8.7% of Coca-Cola (Warren Buffett's firm is the largest shareholder in Coca-Cola, having stock worth >$10 billion dollars) and 6.3% of Kraft (Buffett is also the largest shareholder of Kraft). Berkshire Hathaway also has significant ownership in GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi-Aventis, Johnson & Johnson, and Procter & Gamble, and is one of the main global investors in the latter two pharmaceutical companies.

The article also noted that the Ford, Rockefeller, Kellogg and Robert Wood Johnson Foundation had significant holdings in Coca-Cola, Kellogg, PepsiCo, Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, McDonalds, Nestle, NovoNordisk, YumBrands, Pizza Hut, KFC, Johnson & Johnson, and Sanofi-Aventis, and that the Ford Foundation held shares in a tobacco company, Lorillard, and the Kellogg and Rockefeller Foundations "were indirectly invested in tobacco corporations through conglomerate equity funds...."

This admittedly case-based data suggested that the major private foundations active in global health may have financial holdings that could possibly influence their actions in favor of the vested interests of food, pharmaceutical, and even tobacco companies.

Conflicts Affecting Foundation Leadership

The article noted that:

Several of the [Gates] Foundation's members of the management committee, leadership teams, affiliates, and major funders are currently or were previously members of the boards or executive branches of several major food and pharmaceutical companies ... including Coca-Cola, Merck, Novartis, General Mills, Kraft, and Unilever....

In addition,

Further overlaps between Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation leadership, other private foundations, and circular flows of personnel with food and pharmaceutical companies were observed .... Such patterns of interlinked board directorships, common among corporations and nonprofit organizations, were similarly found in the other private foundations studied.

Examples provided in an appendix were:

Anne Fudge, the chairman of the Gates Foundation’s US Program Advisory Panel is also on the board of directors of Rockefeller Foundation (in addition to General Electric, Novartis, Unilever, and Harvard University, among others).

Furthermore,

Members of personnel also move between the Foundation and pharmaceutical companies. For example, in April 2010, a former Merck senior vice president, Richard Henriques, became the chief financial officer of the Gates Foundation. At least two other members of the Gates Foundation leadership have transferred from the leadership of GlaxoSmithKline to sit on the Foundation’s board of directors, including Kate James, the chief communications officer, and Tachi Yamada, until February 2011, the head of the Foundation’s global health program. Similar patterns were observed with the other foundations studied.

Again, this admittedly case-based data suggested that the major private foundations active in global health may have leaders who have financial relationships that could possibly influence their actions in favor of the vested interests of food and pharmaceutical companies.

Program Initiatives Possibly Related to Conflicts

The article asserted:

The bulk of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation's financial transfers in global health have been to programs developing medical technologies....

In particular,

Overall, about 42% of all funding was spent on health care delivery or increasing access to drugs, vaccines, and medical commodities, while an additional one-third was allocated to technology development (mainly for vaccines and microbicides) or basic science research.

Specific programs were related to companies in which the the Gates Foundation or its leaders had financial interests:

The Foundation has established partnerships with the Coca-Cola Company, which, in the words of the Foundation, are intended to 'create new market opportunities for local farmers whose fruit will be used for Coca-Cola's locally-produced and sold fruit juices'.

Also,

many of the Foundation's pharmaceutical development grants may benefit leading pharmaceutical companies such as Merck and GlaxoSmithKline....

and

Johnson & Johnson has entered a clinical partnership to develop new HIV-prevention technology, noting 'the work between Johnson & Johnson and the Gates Foundation is a strong, strategic, comprehensive relationship'.

While there are many needs in global health, and many approaches to addressing these needs, this limited case-based data suggested that a strong focus of the Gates Foundation was on approaches that revolve around drugs, devices and biotechnology, again which would tend to favor the vested interests of the pharmaceutical companies which the Foundation holds in its investment portfolio and with which some of its leaders have or had financial relationships.

Discussion

While the data from this case-study were limited, they do suggest that major private foundations that support global health, and by extension, health care, services, and policy research may have institutional conflicts of interest, and their leaders may have personal conflicts of interest. It is possible that these conflicts have steered global health policy to favor vested interests, particularly towards approaches that depend on drugs and devices, perhaps instead of more effective ones using less technology.

Furthermore, it is possible that that these conflicts of interest have helped create the anechoic effect.  Conflicts of interest could have pushed the foundations in directions that favored specific vested interests, and away from others that may threaten such interests.  Many of the issues we discuss on Health Care Renewal may threaten such interests.  Private health foundations have been notably uninterested in addressing how problems in leadership and governance of health care organizations can threaten core values, They have been particularly uninterested in addressing specific tactics used when leadership is ill-informed, incompetent, self-interested, conflicted, or even corrupt, e.g., deceptive practices used to promote products and services, and promote policies favorable to vested interests, including, of course, deliberate creation of conflicts of interest (such as the cultivation of key opinion leaders).

In fact, a particular version of the anechoic effect surrounds the private foundations themselves, as described by Stuckler et al:

Although the philanthropic activities of wealthy individuals and corporations have attracted controversy in the past (Text S1), their charitable mission often means that they face less scrutiny than governments; critical analysis of foundations can be seen as 'biting the hand that feeds us.' As a result, within the global health community, private donors are sometimes viewed as the 'third rail' that no one wishes to analyze.

We have often commented on the pervasiveness of conflicts of interest in health care. Now we see them affecting even the most respected private health care foundations which were previously regarded as independent. The web of conflicts of interest may benefit those personally involved, but to the detriment of patients' and the public's health. Unfortunately, as the web has gotten more complex, it stifles awareness of the problem by the unconflicted, much less their ability to respond.

At a minimum, I urge that private health care foundations fully disclose their institutional conflicts of interest, and the conflicts of interest of their leaders. If they wish to maintain their previously sterling reputations, they ought to consider divesting themselves of financial holdings that generate institutional conflicts, and of leaders who have financial relationships that generate personal conflicts.

Hat tip: to Ed Silverman on the PharmaLot blog.

Post Title → "The 'Third Rail' that No One Wishes to Analyze" - Conflicts of Interest Affecting Health Care Foundations

The Institute of Medicine Releases Reports on Practice Guidelines and Systematic Reviews Which Generate Few Echoes

Two days ago, the prestigious US Institute of Medicine released two reports on important health care issues, clinical practice guidelines and systematic reviews.  Systematic reviews of the relevant clinical research have been advocated by evidence-based medicine proponents as the appropriate basis for clinical and policy decisions.  Clinical practice guidelines have been advocated by many health researchers, policy makers, and clinicians as the best way to encapsulate the evidence to inform clinical and policy decision making.  Both reports suggested series of standards for how systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines should be developed. 

These topics are of general importance to clinicians, health services researchers, and health policy makers.  The Institute of Medicine, part of the US National Academy of Sciences, is one of the most authoritative sources of opinion on medicine and health care.  Therefore, one would think that these reports would have gotten wide notice, and would hardly required Health Care Renewal to create some echoes.

However, a Google News search today produced only six "hits" relevant to these reports, including the original press release.  All are in specialized medical/ health care news outlets.  None are in the national media, and none are from major medical/ professional journals or societies. 

Let me suggest a theory about why these two major reports have generated so few echoes so far.  Let me quote from the summary of the report on clinical practice guidelines:

Most guidelines used today suffer from shortcomings in development. Dubious trust in guidelines is the result of many factors, including failure to represent a variety of disciplines in guideline development groups, lack of transparency in how recommendations are derived and rated, and omission of a thorough external review process. To be trustworthy, clinical practice guidelines should:
• Be based on a systematic review of the existing evidence;
• Be developed by a knowledgeable, multidisciplinary panel of experts and representatives from key affected groups;
• Consider important patient subgroups and patient preferences, as appropriate;
• Be based on an explicit and transparent process that minimizes distortions, biases, and conflicts of interest;
• Provide a clear explanation of the logical relationships between alternative care options and health outcomes, and provide ratings of both the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations; and
• Be reconsidered and revised as appropriate when important new evidence warrants modifications of recommendations.
Additionally, as reflected in the committee’s standards for developing trustworthy clinical practice guidelines, guideline development groups optimally comprise members without conflict of interest. The committee recognizes that in some circumstances, a guideline development group may not be able to perform its work without members who have conflicts of interest—for example, relevant clinical specialists who receive a substantial portion of their incomes from services pertinent to the guideline. Therefore, the committee specifies that members of the guideline development group who have a conflict of interest should not represent more than a minority of the group.

So it seems that the report on clinical practice guidelines emphasized two issues highly relevant to Health Care Renewal, the need for transparency in guideline development, and the need to avoid conflicts of interest affecting the development process. The two first standards for guidelines are about transparency and minimization of conflicts of interest.  Similarly, the report on systematic reviews also included fairly tough standards to minimize conflicts of interest.

We on Health Care Renewal go on and on about the need to maximize transparency in health care, and particularly in health care leadership and governance, and about the need to disassemble the now pervasive web of conflicts of interest that has entangled health care.  However, as we know, these are not popular topics among the leadership of health care, which includes many individuals who have greatly benefited from lack of transparency and pervasive conflicts of interest.  We know these topics make these leaders, and many of those who report to, or work or associate with them very uncomfortable.

So unfortunately, I am not surprised that the two new and likely authoritative reports from the Institute of Medicine, despite that organization's prestige, have started off relatively anechoic.  It also unfortunately likely that they will remain relatively anechoic. 

In 2009, the IOM issued an authoritative report on conflicts of interest in medicine and health care which suggested fairly tough standards to decrease such conflicts and their influence (also see post here).  Since 2009, I just found 53 citations to that report in the medical literature using the ISI Web of Science, for a rate of 27/year.  In 1999, the IOM issued a report on medical errors, "To Err is Human."  Since then, it has received 1374 citations, a rate of 115/year. 

As we noted above, the topic of conflicts of interest seems to make the powers that be in health care very uncomfortable.  In contrast, "To Err is Human" was widely interpreted to mean that physicians make a lot of dangerous errors, and the best way to decrease them is to impose more controls by bureaucrats, managers, and executives (even if that was not its intent).  Thus, that report could be twisted to fit the talking points of the powers that be, and hence has been anything but anechoic.

So while Health Care Renewal is hardly a powerful tool for creating publicity, I thought we should try to get the word out about the new IOM reports on clinical practice guidelines and systematic reviews.  Every little bit helps.

Meanwhile, the deathly quiet reception these reports have gotten so far emphasizes the need to combat the anechoic effect.  As long as the powers that be can command billions of dollars to influence the health care conversation through their marketing, public relations, and lobbying departments, expect the discussion not to question what they do, and how they benefit from the status quo to the financial and health detriment of patients and the population.

We will not be able to truly reform health care until we can speak openly about what threatens health care values and what needs to be done about these threats.

Post Title → The Institute of Medicine Releases Reports on Practice Guidelines and Systematic Reviews Which Generate Few Echoes

Despite Poor Financial Results, Diminishing Pipeline, Multiple Settlements of Legal Cases, Outgoing Pfizer CEO Got Over $24 Million

It is the season for share-holders' meetings of big US publicly held corporations, and as the proxy statements prepared for these meetings, prepare for more eye-popping, jaw-dropping examples of executive compensation. 

Pfizer's 2010 CEO Compensation
The AP (via the Wall Street Journal) just noted the compensation given to Jeffrey Kindler, the outgoing (in 2010) CEO of Pfizer, Inc, the world's largest pharmaceutical company:

Former Pfizer Inc. Chairman and CEO Jeffrey B. Kindler may have left the world's largest drugmaker abruptly last December, but he didn't leave empty-handed thanks to a compensation package valued almost $22 million.

Kindler received a 60 percent increase last year over his 2009 compensation, according to an Associated Press analysis of a Pfizer regulatory filing Tuesday.

The New York-based drugmaker gave Kindler a salary and performance-related bonus totaling $4.9 million, a $4.5 million severance payment and more than $12 million in stock and option awards. The company also will continue his health coverage for 12 months 'at active employee rates,' the filing said.

In fact, perusal of the new 2011 Pfizer proxy statement shows that Kindler, who stepped down on 5 December, 2010, made even more based on Pfizer's own calculations, $24,688, 849. Curiously, Ian Read, the CEO after 5 December, and previously Group President, Worldwide Pharmaceutical Business, received $17,396,112, despite only being CEO for 26 days.

Pay for What Kind of Performance?

These opulent pay packages stand in contrast to Pfizer's performance under Kindler and its financial results in 2010:

Kindler was ousted by Pfizer's board unexpectedly Dec. 6 after four years of languishing share prices and several failures of promising drugs in late testing, including a successor to cholesterol fighter Lipitor, the world's top-selling drug. Pfizer will lose U.S. patent protection in November for Lipitor.

Also,

Pfizer's 2010 net income fell 4 percent to $8.26 billion, or $1.02 per share. Revenue totaled $67.81 billion, up 36 percent, thanks to $18.1 billion from sales of Wyeth products.

Its stock price slipped 4 percent to close 2010 at $17.31, while the Standard & Poor's 500 index climbed 12.8 percent.

Furthermore, the compensation given the former and current CEO also stood in sharp contrast to Pfizer's amazing track record of recent unethical behavior.   Pfizer paid a $2.3 billion settlement in 2009 of civil and criminal allegations and a Pfizer subsidiary entered a guilty plea to charges it violated federal law regarding its marketing of Bextra (see post here).  Pfizer was involved in three other major cases from then to early 2010, including two involving settlements of fraud charges, and one in which a jury found the company guilty of violating the RICO (racketeer-influenced corrupt organization) statute (see post here).  The company was listed as one of the pharmaceutical "big four" companies in terms of defrauding the government (see post here).  Pfizer's Pharmacia subsidiary settled allegations that it inflated drugs costs paid by New York in early 2011 (see post here).   Just yesterday a settlement was announced in a long-running class action case which involved allegations that another Pfizer subsidiary had exposed many people to asbestos (see this story in Bloomberg).

Despite Pfizer's recent dismal financial performance, clotted drug pipeline, and unfortunate ethical/ legal track record, the company's board compensation committee reported thus:

The Committee believes that Pfizer’s executive compensation program implements and achieves the goals of our executive compensation philosophy. Pfizer’s executive compensation philosophy, which is set by the Committee, is to align each executive’s compensation with Pfizer’s short-term and long-term performance and to provide the compensation and incentives needed to attract, motivate and retain key executives who are crucial to Pfizer’s long-term success.

Who Provided "Stewardship" of Pfizer?
So I had to ask: who were these people who thought that compensation of over $24 million was somehow "aligned" with declining profits, declining revenues, little output of new drugs, and multiple legal settlements of charges like fraud and violating the RICO act?

Here is a list of Pfizer's board of directors in 2010, and some relevant affiliations, taken from Pfizer's web-site, and where indicated, elsewhere (color coding to be explained below)

- Dennis A. Ausiello, M.D. -
Jackson Professor of Clinical Medicine at Harvard Medical School and Chief of Medicine at Massachusetts General Hospital since 1996.
Member of the Institute of Medicine....
Director of TARIS BioMedical, Inc.
(per Research!America bio) advisor to drug delivery and biosensing start-up companies Entra, BIND Biosciences, and Seventh Sense Biosystems, Inc., to drug-discovery startup companies Promedior and Pulmatrix, to Proventys, an evidence-based medicine delivery system, and to Ore Pharmaceuticals and Polaris, investment and venture capital companies working in the biotech and device area.

- Michael S. Brown, M.D. -
Distinguished Chair in Biomedical Sciences since 1989 and Regental Professor since 1985 at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas.
Member of ... the Institute of Medicine,....
Director of Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

- M. Anthony Burns -
Chairman Emeritus since 2002, Chairman of the Board from 1985 to 2002, Chief Executive Officer from 1983 to 2000, and President from 1979 to 1999 of Ryder System, Inc., a provider of transportation and logistics services.
Life Trustee of the University of Miami.

- Robert N. Burt -
Retired Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of FMC Corporation, a chemicals manufacturer, and FMC Technologies Inc., a machinery manufacturer....
Life Trustee of the Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago

- W. Don Cornwell -
Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of Granite Broadcasting Corporation from 1988 until his retirement in August 2009 and Vice Chairman until December 2009.
(per Wallace Foundation web-site) He previously served as vice president, investment banking division, of Goldman Sachs.

- Frances D. Fergusson, Ph.D. -
President Emeritus of Vassar College since 2006 and President from 1986 to 2006. Served on the Mayo Clinic Board for 14 years, the last four years as its Chairman, and as President of the Board of Overseers of Harvard University from 2007 through 2008.

- William H. Gray III -
Co-Chairman of GrayLoeffler, LLC (formerly the Amani Group), a business advisory and consulting firm. Chairman of the Amani Group from 2004 through September 2009.
Currently Director of ... J. P. Morgan Chase & Co.

- Constance J. Horner -
Guest Scholar from 1993 until 2005 at The Brookings Institution....

- James M. Kilts -
Founding Partner, Centerview Partners Management, LLC, a private equity firm, since 2006.
(Per Centerview Partners web-site) Centerview Partners' investment banking advisory business serves some of the largest companies globally in a broad range of industries, with particular expertise in Food & Consumer Products, Financial Institutions, General Industrials, Healthcare, Media & Entertainment ....
The firm has executed many significant transactions in recent years, including:
Altria's $113 billion spin-off of Philip Morris International, its $62 billion spin-off of Kraft and its $11.7 billion acquisition of UST...
Facet Biotech's $722 million sale to Abbott Labs;
OSI Pharmaceuticals' $4.0 billion sale to Astellas Pharma;

- George A. Lorch -
Chairman Emeritus of Armstrong Holdings, Inc., a global manufacturer of flooring and ceiling materials,....

- John P. Mascotte -
Retired President and Chief Executive Officer of Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas City, Inc.,...

- Suzanne Nora Johnson -
Retired Vice Chairman, Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.,...
Director of American International Group, Inc., .... Board member of the American Red Cross, The Brookings Institution, ... and the University of Southern California.
(per Milken Institute web-site) on the board of numerous not-for-profit organizations, including ... RAND Health ....
She is on the Advisory Board of Councilors of Harvard Medical School

- Ian C. Read -
President and Chief Executive Officer since December 2010.

- Stephen W. Sanger -
Chairman of General Mills, Inc.
Currently Director of ... Wells Fargo & Company.

- William C. Steere, Jr. -
Chairman Emeritus of Pfizer Inc. since 2001.
Currently Director of Health Management Associates, Inc.
Director of the New York University Medical Center ...; and Member of the Board of Overseers of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center.

Of Pfizer's 14 directors (excluding its CEO), seven have or had leadership positions at teaching hospitals, academic medical centers, medical schools or their parent universities. Three have or had leadership positions at other influential non-profit health care organizations. 


Two had leadership positions at potentially competing pharmaceutical or biotechnology companies.

Two had leadership positions at companies that finance pharmaceutical, biotechnology and other health related companies.

One had a leadership position at a health insurance company.

One had a leadership position at a for-profit hospital operating company.

Four had leadership positions in financial services corporations, including some that were implicated in the global financial collapse, and/or required massive federal bail-outs to avoid collapse.

It seems that every time we look at the boards of directors or trustees who are supposed to provide stewardship to a troubled health care organization, we see a similar pattern.  Just as we recently said about the Johnson and Johnson board, ....
 
Summary
 
So here we have the latest striking case that indicates the confluence of forces that can lead to health care dysfunction. Not only has the compensation given to health care leaders got so large that it is per se a cause of increased health spending, but also, and more importantly, such compensation often provides perverse incentives that perpetuate mismanagement, raising costs and lowering quality. This situation appears to be enabled by governance (or "stewardship") by individuals who are often fellow members of the CEOs' club, and hence who may feel more sympathy with the executives they are supposed to supervise than the stockholders whose financial interests they are supposed to protect, or the public whom the companies' products and services are supposed to benefit. Moreover, these individuals often have conflicts of interest which may mitigate against objective scrutiny of the executives they are supposed to oversee. Finally, these individuals often may come from corporate cultures which do not espouse the values that we in health care are supposed to uphold. (See this post and its links for other examples of the sorts of people who are supposed to provide stewardship to health care organizations.)


So to repeat once more-

I strongly believe that there needs to be much more investigation, academic, journalistic, and perhaps legal, of the identity, nature, and culture of the leaders of health care, and their relationships. A few bloggers cannot do it all. Obviously, the anechoic effect mitigates against medical and health care academics looking into their own leaders. However, failing to understand who is leading our march to the brink of health care failure ought not to be something such academics would want on their conscience.

Finally, and obviously, health care organizations need leaders that uphold the core values of health care, and focus on and are accountable for the mission, not on secondary responsibilities that conflict with these values and their mission, and not on self-enrichment. Leaders ought to be rewarded reasonably, but not lavishly, for doing what ultimately improves patient care, or when applicable, good education and good research.

If we do not fix the severe problems affecting the leadership and governance of health care, and do not increase accountability, integrity and transparency of health care leadership and governance, we will be as much to blame as the leaders when the system collapses.

ADDENDUM (23 March, 2011) - See also comments by Merrill Goozner on the GoozNews blog.

Post Title → Despite Poor Financial Results, Diminishing Pipeline, Multiple Settlements of Legal Cases, Outgoing Pfizer CEO Got Over $24 Million

Conflicts of Interest, Government Leaders, and Private Health Care Organizations

There seems to be a small surge of stories about conflicts of interest regarding health care affecting government leaders who can affect health care. 

The Institute of Medicine defined conflict of interest in medicine as "circumstances that create a risk that professional judgments or actions regarding a primary interest will be unduly influenced by a secondary interest."  So we will summarize these stories by first showing what each leader's secondary interests are, and then show how they may influence carrying out his leadership responsibilities.  (We used "his" because all examples are of male leaders.)

Florida: Governor Scott and Solantic

Rick Scott, the new Florida Governor, apparently still has strong ties to a for-profit chain of urgent care centers, as reported by the Palm Beach Post:

As Florida Gov. Rick Scott reorganizes health agencies, cuts spending and pushes for new free-market health policies, his ownership of Solantic, the urgent care chain, increasingly poses conflict of interest questions.

Solantic co-founder Karen Bowling says Scott has taken steps to distance himself from the chain. He stopped regular business calls with her after he was elected.

'I don't talk to him anymore. Not since November. Really not much since April,' Bowling said.

Scott left the privately held company's board of directors in January 2010, during his campaign.

But the most important step the governor must take to avoid a conflict of interest, some ethics experts say, is to divest his Solantic interests.

In January, Scott did transfer his Solantic stock - to his wife.

There were obvious questions raised whether this transfer mitigated the conflict of interest:

Scott's efforts to distance himself appear to be designed to meet the letter of Florida ethics laws, if not the spirit.

They may not succeed if challenged, warned legal and ethics expert Marc Rodwin, a law professor at Suffolk University who is the author of several books on health care and conflicts of interest.

'Placing his ownership in the name of his wife is not an effective way to control for conflicts of interest and not generally accepted because they are personally related,' Rodwin said.


Rodwin said Scott's blindness to Solantic's daily business decisions likewise does not relieve his conflict.


'His family still benefits from it,' he said.

There are a number of issues before Florida government about which there appears to be a risk that Governor Scott's actions could be unduly influenced by his family's ownership interest in Solantic:

From the moment he was elected, Scott has said government has no business providing primary care.


His budget proposal eliminated state support for the clinics. The county's health department director warns that may leave 30,000 adults without a medical home.

Scott's decisions as governor are likely to affect Solantic in other, perhaps more significant ways.

Scott's budget would curb growth in Medicaid spending, the state-federal safety net insurance program, by requiring most recipients to join private HMOs. Solantic accepts Medicaid HMO reimbursements, but not state Medicaid, so adding clients could broaden the clinics' customer base.

But the greatest benefit for Solantic could come from Scott and other Republican governors' lobbying efforts in Washington.

They want the Obama administration to give states waivers from the Affordable Care Act, and provide them with a massive block grant to expand health coverage in the way they deem best for their states. Money slated to go to business' health insurance tax credits and lower income consumers' insurance subsidies could pay for the grants - to the tune of billions.

Obama has said he's willing to give the states waivers on a speeded-up timetable. His administration Thursday published new rules on how states could get that waiver.

Scott's health policy adviser Michael Cannon, an economist with the Cato Institute in Washington, favors giving consumers health vouchers that they would use either as cash for direct-pay medical care or to buy insurance.

The possible effect on Solantic and similar clinics could be huge, said Rodwin, the legal ethics expert.

'You have a major owner-operator of a set of clinics on the state level, and a major policy figure on a state level, making major changes that affect whether that kind of business will thrive or not, what their competition will be, and really reforming the whole health sector,'  Rodwin said. That's in my view a very dangerous role.'

Note that this is not the first whiff of scandal regarding Rick Scott's leadership role in health care.  As the article noted, Scott:

resigned as CEO of Columbia/HCA amid a federal billing fraud investigation. Columbia/HCA ultimately agreed to the nation's largest Medicare fraud settlement, a $1.7 billion criminal and civil penalty.

Although the company had admitted to criminal wrongdoing, Scott himself was never charged, and he has denied knowledge of the illegal activities.

Scott left Columbia/HCA with more than $5 million in severance and $300 million worth of stock and options.

See our most recent detailed post on Mr Scott's history here.

Massachusetts: House Health Finance Committee Chair Walsh and Health Care Industry Lobbyists

The newly appointed chair of the Massachusetts House committee on health care finance has strong relationships to health care industry lobbyists, according to an editorial in the Boston Globe:

Speaker Robert DeLeo has chosen a health-finance committee chairman, Steven M. Walsh of Lynn, whose family is to lobbying what the Mannings are to NFL quarterbacking. Walsh’s father-in-law represents the state’s health insurers, while his uncle’s firm blocks and tackles for Steward Health Care, new owners of the Caritas chain of Catholic hospitals.

Again, there are a number of issues before the Massachusetts legislature about which there appears to be a risk that Representative Walsh's actions could be unduly influenced by his family's lobbying work:

Next to the budget, the thorniest issue the Legislature will deal with this year will be changes in health care financing. Lawmakers will consider bills that may completely change how health care providers are paid. That shift — from fee-for-service payments towards a system based more on per-capita reimbursements — will set off a free-for-all among insurers, doctors, and hospitals.

So,

Walsh’s admirable efforts ... [to improve legistlation regarding lobbying] don’t erase the conflict of interest he faces on health care issues. Walsh can try to separate family feelings and events from his official role, but the companies paying his uncle’s firm and his father-in-law are still expecting them to use every opportunity to make the strongest possible case for their clients. And it’s no exaggeration that these clients — the state’s insurers and its newest hospital chain — have hundreds of millions of dollars at risk in the new payment system Walsh will be vetting.

Perhaps if the stakes were lower or the relationships more distant, Walsh could chair the health-finance committee without risking public confidence. But as it is, he will be in a position of representing the taxpayers’ interests against those of his close relatives.

Note that we discussed Steward Health's possibly revolutionary role in commercializing physicians' practices here, and how a former Massachusetts government health care agency official exited via the revolving door to join Steward Health Care here.
New York: Governor Cuomo's Advisor and Major Hospital Systems

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo has a close advisor whom he just appointed to a "Medicaid redesign team" whose clients include large academic medical centers/ hospital systems, per the New York Times:

When Andrew M. Cuomo married Kerry Kennedy in 1990, Jeffrey A. Sachs served as an usher. When Mr. Cuomo’s daughter Michaela was born, he asked Mr. Sachs to be her godfather. When his marriage fell apart years later, Mr. Cuomo stayed in Mr. Sachs’s triplex near the United Nations.

Since Mr. Cuomo’s election as governor last fall, Mr. Sachs, 58, has taken on a powerful role among his health care advisers as the administration confronts crucial decisions, including how to overhaul New York’s $53 billion Medicaid program.

But at the same time, Mr. Sachs, known to many in Albany as 'Andrew’s best friend,' is working as a paid consultant to some of the biggest players in the New York health care industry, including Mount Sinai Medical Center, NYU Langone Medical Center and the state’s largest association of nursing homes, all of which have financial interests at stake in the coming Medicaid changes.

Mr. Sachs, whose firm is named Sachs Consulting, has never registered as a lobbyist, which would require him to divulge his clients and fees to the state ethics commission.

Again, there are a number of issues before New York government about which there appears to be a risk that Governor Cuomo's actions could be unduly influenced by his friend, advisor, and committee member's consulting relationships with major hospital systems.

Mr. Sachs was also an early advocate of the “Wisconsin model” of Medicaid, under which the governor would set a target for spending reductions and then appoint a task force of industry stakeholders to apportion the cuts. The approach has political appeal for the governor, in that it entices would-be opponents of spending reductions to participate in the plan rather than protest it. But it also endows the unelected team members with immense power.

Mr. Sachs made recommendations to Mr. Cuomo and his aides about whom to appoint to the Medicaid team, which Mr. Cuomo formed through an executive order in January. During the transition, Mr. Sachs also helped assemble a four-person policy team to begin meeting with state agencies about the best approach to reducing Medicaid spending

Moreover, the Times article recounted cases in which Mr Sachs appeared to influence policy in ways that benefited his consulting clients. For example:

While he was helping Mr. Cuomo assemble his health care staff, Mr. Sachs’s name arose in an unusual personnel matter, one that held great interest for one of his clients, NYU Langone Medical Center.

For at least a year, NYU Langone had had strained relations with Dr. Harold S. Koplewicz, a well-known psychiatrist who founded the hospital’s child psychiatry center but left in 2009 to start a competing research and clinical center.

Relations worsened because Dr. Koplewicz, who also served as director of the Nathan S. Kline Institute for Psychiatric Research, a state-run psychiatric center in Rockland County that also has a research affiliation with NYU, refused to allow NYU to screen those he hired at the institute, among other issues.

During an October meeting between Mr. Sachs and Dr. Koplewicz, Mr. Sachs suggested the doctor resign from the Kline Institute, people briefed on the meeting said. Should he lobby too aggressively to keep his job, Mr. Sachs warned, Mr. Cuomo, then widely expected to win election, might choose to close down the institute.

In a later meeting in December, Michael F. Hogan, state commissioner of mental health, told Dr. Koplewicz that he had been warned by Mr. Sachs that his reappointment by Mr. Cuomo would be jeopardized if Dr. Koplewicz did not resign, according to the people briefed.

Afterward, Dr. Koplewicz wrote Dr. Hogan a letter detailing his accomplishments as director of the institute and complaining of the pressure being exerted by Mr. Sachs.

'As you explained — and I appreciate your candor — you have been pressured by NYU through Jeff Sachs to have me resign as a condition for your reappointment as commissioner of mental health,' Dr. Koplewicz wrote in the letter.

In a response sent the following day, Dr. Hogan did not dispute Dr. Koplewicz’s account but suggested that he had been insufficiently cooperative with NYU and the Office of Mental Health.

'Accordingly, your service as director, Psychiatric Research Institute, will end effective Jan. 13, 2011,' Dr. Hogan wrote.

Dr. Koplewicz and Dr. Hogan both declined to comment, though neither disputed the authenticity of the letters.

This case is particularly disquieting because of Governor Cuomo's former role as a tough state attorney general who targeted white collar crime.

Summary

US health care is hugely complex. The interests of its increasingly large commercial players can be strongly affected by the actions of government at local, state and national levels.

We have previously discussed the pervasiveness of conflicts of interest throughout health care. It should come as no surprise that there are important conflicts affecting government leaders who have power over health care issues.

Although there may actually be more laws and regulations about conflicts of interest affecting government leaders than about those affecting, say, leaders of academic medical institutions, the increasingly incestuous nature of health care leadership seems to add impetus to entwine the system in ever increasing strands of conflict.

So, I humbly suggest, as a variation on a theme I have sounded before, that governmental leaders who have power over health care should put the health of patients and the population first, and should not have relationships that risk this mission in service of private gain.  Furthermore, leaders of civilian health care organizations, especially of hospitals, hospital systems and physicians' groups whose mission is also to improve care of individuals and society, should not seek to entangle government leaders in conflicts meant to serve private financial interests. 

Post Title → Conflicts of Interest, Government Leaders, and Private Health Care Organizations

Despite Recalls, Legal Settlements, Guilty Plea, Johonson & Johnson Board Paid CEO $29 Million, Says He "Met Expectations"

For our latest story about the tremendous disconnect between the pay and performance of leaders of health care organizations, we turn to Reuters. 

Astronomical Pay

Despite having a very bad 2010, Johnson and Johnson continued to reward its CEO royally:

After a year in which Johnson & Johnson's product quality control was deemed such a shambles that the U.S. government will oversee some plants, the board had praise for Chief Executive William Weldon and awarded him almost $29 million in overall compensation.

The once golden reputation of the diversified healthcare giant was severely tarnished by seemingly endless recalls of widely used consumer products as well as recalls of medical devices and products from other units in 2010.

U.S. consumer product sales fell by more than 19 percent in 2010 and the company's 2011 forecast for earnings growth of only 1 percent to 3 percent fell shy of Wall Street projections.

Weldon's compensation was trimmed 7 percent, but in what appears to be a disconnect with the reality of its situation, J&J's (JNJ.N) board, in a year-end regulatory filing, said his performance 'generally met expectations' despite a year in which 'operational sales declined and fell below the goals for the year.'

'The board believes that Mr Weldon provided strong leadership during a very demanding year and has worked to resolve multiple challenging issues and position the company for future growth,' it said in the filing.

The rash of consumer medicine recalls in 2009 and 2010 were largely responsible for the first back-to-back years of company sales declines since World War Two.

Last week, U.S. health regulators filed a consent decree against J&J's McNeil consumer unit that will put some of its manufacturing plants under government supervision for at least five years.
The McNeil unit has recalled more than 300 million bottles and packages of Tylenol, Motrin, Rolaids, Benadryl and other products in the past year over faulty manufacturing and quality control problems.
The recalls cost the company $900 million in sales last year and hurt earnings, and Weldon was called to testify before Congress about problems that left pharmacy and supermarket shelves without Children's Tylenol.

But Weldon's 2010 compensation fell just 7 percent to $28.7 million from the $30.8 million he received in 2009. His performance bonus for 2010 was down 45 percent to $1.98 million.

The Wall Street Journal article on Weldon's pay also mentioned that Weldon also received " perquisites and other benefits in 2010 [which] included personal use of company aircraft, valued at $89,796; a car and driver for commuting and other personal transportation valued at $29,635; and a nominal amount of home security system monitoring fees."

The 2011 Johnson and Johnson proxy statement also noted that the other four of the five most highly paid Johnson and Johnson executives received compensation valued from $5,632,285 to $8,851,965 in 2010. In particular, Ms Colleen A Goggins, who retired under fire as head of the embattled Johnson and Johnson consumer group, walked away with $7,738,614 in 2010.

Other Aspects of Bad Company Performance

The WSJ Health Blog has been keeping an eye on the running total of Johnson and Johnson recalls. On 9 March, 2011, the list included 18 separate recalls of various different drugs and devices since July, 2009, from over-the-counter cold medications to sutures and hip replacements.

While suffering such a massive breakdown of the ability to perform the company's most basic function, to supply pure, unadulterated medicines and well-made devices, the company has also suffered from ethical lapses which were not listed in the Reuters article. In 2010, these included a jury verdict that the company had committed marketing fraud in its promotion of the atypical anti-psychotic drug Respirdal (see post here), and a guilty plea to a misdemeanor for and civil settlement of charges of "misbranding" Topamax by Johnson and Johnson subsidiary Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals (see post here).

Of course, we once speculated that the Johnson and Johnson CEO commanded such astronomical pay in part based on his ability to influence US government health policy in favor of his and his company's interests (see this post).

Who Made Up the Board Who Was Responsible?

Responsible for the astronomical amounts paid to Mr Weldon despite his company's ongoing inability to make pure, unadulterated medicines, and to other executives who presided over the company's recalls, guilty plea, and legal settlements was the company's board of directors.  Its members are listed below.  For explanation of the color coding, see the explanation below:

• Mary Sue Coleman - President, University of Michigan.
• James G Cullen - Retired Chairman and CEO, Bell Atlantic Corp
• Ian E L Davis - Senior Advisor, Apax Partners; Former Chairman and Worldwide Managing Director, McKinsey & Company, non-executive director, BP plc
• Michael M E Johns - Chancellor, Emory University, Past Chair of the Council of Teaching Hospitals, member of the editorial board, JAMA, chair of the publication committee, Academic Medicine
• Susan L Lindquist - Member and Former Director, Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research, Co-Founder of FoldRx Pharmaceuticals, Inc, a subsidiary of Pfizer Inc.
• Anne M Mulcahy - Former Chairman and CEO, Xerox Corp, director of the Washington Post Company, previously director of Citigroup Inc, and Federal National Association (Fannie Mae)
• Leo F Mullin - Retired Chairman and CEO, Delta Airlines, director of Education Management Corporation
• William D Perez -Senior Advisor, Geenhill & Co, Inc, Trustee of Cornell University and Northwestern Hospital
• Charles Prince - Senior Counselor, Albright Capital Management LLC, Retired Chairman and CEO, Citigroup
• David Satcher - Director, Center of Excellent on Health Disparities, Director, Satcher Health Leadership Institute and Poussaint-Satcher-Crosby Chair in Mental Health, Morehouse School of Medicine, and trustee of the Kaiser Family Foundation

Of Johnson and Johnson's 10 directors (excluding its CEO), four have leadership positions at teaching hospitals, academic medical centers, medical schools or their parent universities.  Of these, two also had leadership positions at other influential non-profit health care organizations, including medical journals, a teaching hospital association, and a charitable foundation.

One had a management position at a competing pharmaceutical company.

Four had leadership positions in  financial services corporations, including some that were implicated in the global financial collapse, and/or required massive federal bail-outs to avoid collapse.

Three had had leadership positions in other organizations now under fire , that is, McKinsey, for the role of one of its former executives in an alleged insider trading scandal (e.g., latest coverage in the NY Times); several for-profit higher education companies caught up in allegations of luring students destined to fail in order to collect tuition funded by government loans;  and BP, under investigation for its role in a massive oil spill.

Summary

So here we have the latest striking case that indicates the confluence of forces that can lead to health care dysfunction.  Not only has the compensation given to health care leaders got so large that it is per se a cause of increased health spending, but also, and more importantly, such compensation often provides perverse incentives that perpetuate mismanagement, raising costs and lowering quality.  This situation appears to be enabled by governance by individuals who are often fellow members of the CEOs' club, and hence who may feel more sympathy with the executives they are supposed to supervise than the stockholders whose financial interests they are supposed to protect, or the public whom the companies' products and services are supposed to benefit.  Moreover, these individuals often have conflicts of interest which may mitigate against objective scrutiny of the executives they are supposed to oversee.  Finally, these individuals often may come from corporate cultures which do not espouse the values that we in health care are supposed to uphold.  (See this post and its links for other examples of the sorts of people who are supposed to provide stewardship to health care organizations.)

So to repeat once more-

I strongly believe that there needs to be much more investigation, academic, journalistic, and perhaps legal, of the identity, nature, and culture of the leaders of health care, and their relationships. A few bloggers cannot do it all. Obviously, the anechoic effect mitigates against medical and health care academics looking into their own leaders. However, failing to understand who is leading our march to the brink of health care failure ought not to be something such academics would want on their conscience.

Finally, and obviously, health care organizations need leaders that uphold the core values of health care, and focus on and are accountable for the mission, not on secondary responsibilities that conflict with these values and their mission, and not on self-enrichment. Leaders ought to be rewarded reasonably, but not lavishly, for doing what ultimately improves patient care, or when applicable, good education and good research.

If we do not fix the severe problems affecting the leadership and governance of health care, and do not increase accountability, integrity and transparency of health care leadership and governance, we will be as much to blame as the leaders when the system collapses.

ADDENDUM (17 March, 2011) - Also see comments on by Jim Edwards on the Placebo Effect blog: "heads he wins, tails shareholders lose," as do patients and doctors. 

Post Title → Despite Recalls, Legal Settlements, Guilty Plea, Johonson & Johnson Board Paid CEO $29 Million, Says He "Met Expectations"

Some Dare Call It "Corruption" - the Massachusetts Blue Cross Blue Shield Golden Parachute Scandal Continues

We have discussed many cases of health care organizations' leaders reaping rewards disproportionate to any concept of their performance, and especially to any concept of the effect of their conduct on patients' or the public's health.  Most of these cases have been pretty anechoic, but for some reason, the case of the huge golden parachute given to the outgoing CEO of Massachusetts Blue Cross Blue Shield despite a tenure  marked by financial losses and no particularly brilliant advances in patients' care or outcomes, (see this post) continues to generate responses. 

One editorial suggested that should the non-profit health insurance company continue to pay so lavishly, it should lose its tax exemption.  Another noted that the company should start putting its stakeholders, defined as its policy-holders "first and its funding of overly generous compensation packages to board members and outgoing CEOs somewhere far below."  Finally, an editorial in the local Providence Journal used the "c" word, "corruption," to define the company's and its CEO's behavior.

So it should not be surprising that defenders of the company have appeared.  The Boston Globe published an article which featured attempts to minimize the importance of the CEO's golden parachute. Further analysis of the points are in order.

Executive Salaries are a Minimal Component of Cost

The article quoted an expert who asserted executive salaries are not themselves a big component of cost:

The outcry grew big enough to force Blue Cross board members to vote to suspend their own payments and to lead the insurer to make promises to curb excessive payouts to executives. There’s just one problem: Those steps will do little to fix soaring health care costs.

'I have the same outrage,' Stuart H. Altman, a national health policy professor at Brandeis University, said about Blue Cross’s payments. But, 'We need to put executive pay and board salaries in perspective. It is not the major force, or even close to the major force, in driving up health care costs.'

My comment is that just because administrative costs are not the largest component of health care costs does not mean they do not drive health care costs.

As I have argued before, the biggest problem created by excess compensation for health care organizations' leaders is not the amount of money they get, per se.  The problem is the effect of the perverse incentives created by the money.  One concern is that people paid that much may make decisions that support their pay in the short-term, but damage the organizations' mission in the long-term.  Another is that the sorts of people attracted by the possibility of big pay packages are those least likely to uphold the mission in the first place.  Another is that the huge disparity between the pay of the top leaders and of everybody else is demoralizing for the relatively poorly paid staff who actually must do the work.

Finally, it may be worth quoting the former President of Princeton University, just interviewed about what academic leadership was like in the days before giant pay packages:

I’m not a fan of huge salaries for presidents of academic institutions. These are hard jobs. But people don’t really do them for the money. What kind of message do you really want to convey concerning the nature of the institution and its leadership? I always thought that it was important to convey a message of we’re all in this together. If you as president earn so much more than everyone else, it’s hard to argue that we’re all in this together.

Focusing on Executive Compensation Distracts from the Real Issues

The final argument in the Boston Globe piece was that huge executive compensation just is a distraction from the real issues:

Yet [current Massachusetts Blue Cross Blue Shield CEO Andrew] Dreyfus said he is concerned that the focus on executive and director pay will distract insurers, providers, and policy makers from addressing factors driving health care costs higher. Those factors range from an aging population to increases in obesity to expensive tests, drugs, and treatments that cure diseases and prolong lives.

'If you had a dozen health economists sitting in this room and you asked them what’s driving health care [costs], you know executive and board compensation wouldn’t be at the top of the list,' he said. 'It would be chronic illness and prices of hospitals and doctors and medical advances and discoveries and technology.'

That list of the "real" drivers of health care costs sounds very familiar.

Wendell Potter's Deadly Spin, is an expose of how how insurance and managed care corporations' public relations departments used deception, propaganda, and outright disinformation campaigns to make sure health policy supported the companies' interests.

Potter wrote (p.110) about how PR campaigns were designed to distract the public and policy makers from the industry's responsibility for health care dysfunction:

Rather than admit responsibility for the failures, insurance executives pointed the finger of blame at their customers, the 'consumers' of health care, and, of course, the providers of care. In introducing the concept of their new silver bullet - consumer driven health care - insurance executives claimed that the 'real drivers of health care costs' (one of my CEO's favorite expressions) were the people who sought care when they really didn't need it and the doctors and hospitals who were all too willing to provide this unnecessary care. Sure, the aging population and expensive new technology were also factors, but the main culprits were people who just didn't realize how expensive health care had become.

I color coded the factors listed by the current Blue Cross CEO as the real "drivers" of health care using the same colors with which I coded Mr Potter's list the specific distractors created by insurance company executives to deflect attention from the companies' inability (and probable) disinclination to control costs.
So it appears that Andrew Dreyfus is working from the same playbook that Wendell Potter described, down to the "drivers of health care costs" terminology. 

Summary

The Massachusetts Blue Cross Blue Shield kerfuffle seems to be enlarging into a good case to teach about what health care dysfunction is really all about.  It shows how the leaders of large health care organizations seem to be putting their self-interest ahead of the missions they are supposed to uphold.  Without governance structures that hold them accountable for upholding these missions, they have set up perverse incentives to pay themselves very well regardless of the effects of their actions on patients' or the public's health. 

So it appears, as the Providence Journal editorial asserted, that the leadership of health care organizations is increasingly corrupt, at least using the Transparency International definition of corruption, abuse of entrusted power for private gain. 

True health care reform would make leaders of health care organizations accountable for upholding their missions, and for patients' and the public's health.  Leaders of health care organizations ought to get reasonable incentives for improving health, but not incentives so large as to demoralize the people who actually do the work and take care of the patients. 

Post Script: More Undisclosed Conflicts of Interest

It is obvious why Andrew Dreyfus, the new CEO of Massachusetts Blue Cross Blue Shield might quote the health insurance industry public relations party line about drivers of health care costs that conveniently do not include insurance company practices and executive compensation. 

It was not obvious when reading the Boston Globe article why Professor Altman might be susceptible to that party line.  Perhaps his conclusions were only based on his scholarship.

However, the Boston Globe article failed to disclose Prof Altman's part-time jobs.  As per this 2010 proxy statement, he is a member of the board of directors of Lincare, a company that provides respiratory care services, including disease management, and of Aveta Inc, a privately held health insurance company.  Prof Altman's total compensation from Lincare in 2009 (per the latest proxy statement available, i.e., that issued in 2010), was over $1.7 million.   Note that corporate directors, as we have discussed previously, have a fiduciary duty to exhibit "unyielding loyalty" to the stockholders of the company and their interests  [Per Monks RAG, Minow N. Corporate Governance, 3rd edition. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2004. P.200.].  Given Prof Altman's membership in the board of directors of a health insurance company, and his towering compensation as a director of a health care company that may need to maintain good relationships with health care insurers, it would seem that he has multiple financial relationships that could lead to sympathy with the health insurance industry's public relations party line.

So it seems that regardless of the intent of the reporter who wrote it, the latest Boston Globe article about the Massachustts Blue Cross Blue Shield CEO golden parachute scandal ended up being an apologia for excess compensation of health care insurance executives that followed the script written years ago by health care insurance corporate public relations.

So I need to add another conclusion.  The discussion of health care policy needs to be informed by disclosure of the financial interests of those participating, particularly those participating as experts in the media.   True health care reform would lead to such disclosure.  However, in our currently dysfunctional health care environment, be very skeptical about the interests of "health policy experts" who seem eager to support the powers that be.

Post Title → Some Dare Call It "Corruption" - the Massachusetts Blue Cross Blue Shield Golden Parachute Scandal Continues